“We doubt that for a murder case such as this one this delay [eleven months] ... is enough to be ‘presumptively prejudicial,’ so as to require us to inquire ‘into the other factors that go into the balance.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- “We doubt that for a murder case such as this one this delay [eleven months] ... is enough to be ‘presumptively prejudicial,’ so as to require us to inquire ‘into the other factors that go into the balance.’ ”
- In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, "[d]efendant's evidence may be considered insofar as it merely explains or clarifies or is not inconsistent with the [S]tate's evidence."
- 11 months not presumptively prejudicial
- “Defendant’s evidence may be considered insofar as it merely explains or clarifies or is not inconsistent with the [S]tate’s evidence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*30 Justice CARLTON
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I wish to note that I consider the majority’s extensive discussion of the question whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to speedy trial attaches at the time the arrest warrant is issued to be pure dictum.
Chief Justice BRANCH, Justices HUSKINS and MEYER join in this concurring opinion.